On revolutionary self-reliance

The main justification we are seeing for my lynching is the pragmatist idea that more can get done in the Democratic or Republican parties and so I should have gone along with my lynching in exchange for a career. The RCP splinter “Kasama” has even referred to my lyncher as “progressive.” In Aesopian language the RCP also referred this month to the lyncher as “virtuous.” It’s another reason never to deal with backstabbers who rely on the ole’ boys’ network. If they can’t struggle to your face, they’re not worth a revolutionary’s time.

The Mensheviks opposing MIM justify lynching by saying that no revolution was going to happen between 1989 and 2009 anyway, so the lynching was justified. The whole point of Lenin’s struggle against Mensheviks is that Mensheviks said the conditions for revolution did not exist when they did.

Alternatively to get around MIM’s criticism, the Mensheviks refer to joining the Democrats as individuals instead of as communists as “revolution is possible.” This is the kind of revolution where we eat Doritos all day long, don’t study and live off borrowed money from China to wake up 20 years after a lynching in order to claim a job in a parasite administration. It’s the kind of revolution attractive to people who want patronage jobs, not struggle.

This disgusting pro-lynching view leaves out what revolutionaries accomplish in independent struggle. In my case, I was one of the earliest activists in the Central America cause and stood up for gay/lesbian rights at a time when it was very unpopular. I believe I was the leading youth organizer in the 1980s in the anti-apartheid cause in the United $tates, and thus an external factor in apartheid’s collapse.

I wrote and distributed articles to millions of people across the world and I have seen the influence of that work in the hands of others, all the way into the top ranks of government.

I have also made the leading contribution in the struggle against 9/11-related falsehoods. For that reason alone, for struggling independently, it is clear that the lynching was wrong. That contribution could not be made in either the Republican or Democratic parties. Now the lynching is in the way of the struggle against Zionist colonialism.

The pro-lynching Strasserite pseudo-communists say there are no positive role models for females, but they are wrong for two reasons. One is that they are egotists, who do not understand there is no progressive role for egotism in a society like the United $tates. Two, is that they see the female role models and do not want to do the work. Those are the real two reasons for raising a ruckus making it impossible to criticize reactionary females involved in lynching.

I made up my mind against third party infiltration gambits long before they happened to me. The idea of coercing a revolutionary into government service goes against what we have long defined as the “principal task,” “to create public opinion and the independent institutions of the oppressed to seize power.” The Avakian wing of Democrats never supported independence from the major parties or corporate media. What they say otherwise is just lying window-dressing.

I thank a non-fiction Black writer for comparing my situation to slavery. Recently, I also read a non-fiction book which described as slavery many situations less coercive than the one I am in. It was supposed to be a relic of feudalism or slavery that the upper class could accuse the poor of anything without process and have it stick.

Long ago the Democrats of the South discovered that they could motivate lynching as service to the Democratic Party. That loathsome approach has continued to this day; even though, it is no longer the case that Amerikkkans hang Blacks from trees. The supporting institutions and ideologies were all left in place.

The corporate media did not report what it needed to report on my lynching even as it was carried out in full view in 2008, because it sought to create a lynching atmosphere. International readers should not mistake the flattery as anything different than Olmert’s talking peace and then invading Gaza. It’s the same thing.

People spreading rumors are the problem in a lynching. Instead of saying that rumors are just “indirect” and thereby confusing lynching with the crime of burglary for instance, the anti-lynching struggle has to oppose rumor-mongers or fail to be an anti-lynching struggle. The people whooping it up on the way to the hanging have to be stopped, not just the ones with the ropes in their hands.

I would have accomplished much more as a revolutionary had it not been for false rape rumors spread by racists. These rumors gave my comrades an excuse not to recruit successfully and the false relationship I was involved in with the lyncher brought down the level of my own work for years afterwards.

Aside from being wrong for violating the principal contradiction, the lynching was wrong at the margin both because Biden or Jesse Jackson could have done what Obama did and because my comrades and I would have accomplished more change without it.

Given that I wrote and distributed letters about the lynching even at the time, there was no way it was going to be a secret kept from the Republicans. One of the people involved also knew the KKK well. Some minority of white youth even believed the fabrication as an even higher percentage of adults in responsible positions did. Some die-hards have made it impossible for me to entertain a career with the major parties: such flattery only spreads illusions among the international united front to cover up war and its preparations.

It is not surprising that with the use of lynching in an election known by an increasing number of people, the KKK types are riding high now, emboldened. Meanwhile, Strasserite rhetoric has crept even into the New York Times. Strasser was Hitler’s number two who thought Stalin was good while Jews were bad. An unnamed New York Times columnist just rewrote a Stalin saying in a lynching context–an Amerikkkan-style Strasserism.


%d bloggers like this: